Earlier today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he saw no roadblocks to formally repealing the ban on gay military members serving openly,” stressing that “if the military chiefs make their recommendation to move forward on the repeal before the end of the month, he will sign it.” Under that scenario, repeal would take effect as early as September. He added that “the training has gone well and people have been ‘pleasantly surprised’ at the lack of pushback from the troops.”

During tonight’s presidential debate in New Hampshire, however, five of the seven Republicans on stage rebuffed Gates and suggested that they would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy:

– RICK SANTORUM: The military is “not for social experimentation.” Commanders should have a “system of discipline in place that punishes ‘bad behavior,’” he stressed.

– TIM PAWLENTY: Despite being the first presidential nominee to argue that he would bring back the policy and even go after the Congressional funding to implement repeal, Pawlenty stressed that he would listen to the commanders on the ground. “We’re in a nation in two wars. I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders,” he said.

– MITT ROMNEY: “I believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”

– NEWT GINGRICH: Even though the Pentagon’s comprehensive survey of the military attitudes found that 70 percent of service members responded they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay service member in their immediate units, Gingrich managed to conclude that “the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing [the policy].” He added that he would reinstate the policy, if asked to do so by the military.

– MICHELE BACHMANN: “I would keep the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy”.

Watch the exchange:

Only Ron Paul and Hermain Cain argued that they would not overturn the repeal.

This post was generated based on liveblogging from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and various live tweets from the courtroom.

The rest of today’s Prop 8 proceedings addressed a motion by proponents to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision because he is in a long-term same-sex relationship and would thus benefit from ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The proponents’ lawyer, Charles Cooper, argued that there is a distinction between Walker’s sexual orientation and intention to marry and that they are only making a point about the latter. But Judge James Ware pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest whether Walker ever wished to marry his partner.

Ware said that he will provide a written ruling in the next 24 hours. In it, he will consider a number of other cases and hypotheticals that were brought forth about when judges should recuse themselves. Here were some of the comparisons made during the arguments:

- FEMALE vs. GENDER DISCRIMINATION: In the mid-1970s, Judge Constance Baker Motley was assigned to adjudicate Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, a class action gender-discrimination suit. She was asked to recuse herself because she was a woman and had been an attorney. She declined, giving this rationale: “If background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds.”

- JUDAISM vs. MUSLIM TERRORIST: In 1994, Judge Michael Mukasey was asked to recuse himself from the trial of Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny because of his Zionist Judaism. Elgabrowny was a Muslim charged in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Mukasey chose not to, citing other cases where charges of bias failed: “The objection here is not based on race or sex or the Mormon religion, but the motion in this case is in all relevant ways the same as the motions in those cases. It is the same rancid wine in a different bottle.”

- BLACK vs. CIVIL RIGHTS: During the trial, Ware asked Cooper if he felt a black judge should recuse himself from a civil rights case. Cooper said that alone would not constitute bias.

- GAY vs. DON’T ASK DON’T TELL: Cooper introduced the idea of a gay judge ruling on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but then conceded that a gay identity alone would not be enough to bias the judge.

- PREVIOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT vs. SEXUAL ASSAULT: Ware made the point that judges might not have to disclose their race because it might be visually apparent, but what about a judge who had a history of sexual abuse? Ware asked Cooper whether a judge should have to disclose personal experience with sexual assault when ruling in case about one. Cooper admitted that, according to his argument against Walker, yes, a judge should disclose relevant intimate details.

- CATHOLIC vs. ABORTION: Therese Stewart, arguing on behalf of San Francisco, pointed out that a judge’s Catholic identity would not preclude him or her from ruling on a case about abortion. (Given that many of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic, this particular example might carry more weight.)

- FAMILY PLANNING vs. CONTRACEPTION: Stewart also pointed out that in a case about contraception, by Cooper’s logic, a judge would have to disclose any history of family planning or use of contraception.

As advocates lobby the New York state Senate to enact historic marriage equality legislation before the legislative session comes to an end on June 20, Equality Matters’ Carlos Maza has some encouraging research for the seven or so on-the-fence Republicans who fear that a vote for same-sex-marriage would jeopardize their seats: “history shows that New York Republicans who support marriage equality have an easy time winning reelection, even in heavily conservative districts”:

Since 2007, four other Republican assembly members have broken ranks and voted in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Every single one of them lost the supposedly invaluable endorsement of the Conservative Party as a result. And every single one has won reelection, typically without even having to face a primary challenger. [...]

Pro-equality Republicans might also find themselves having an easier time in their general elections in 2012. A June 2 Quinnipiac University poll found that nearly 60 percent of New Yorkers support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, including 58 percent of independent voters. Quinnipiac’s results confirm the findings of two other polls conducted in 2011 which also found majority support for marriage equality in New York State.

Those numbers represent a dramatic shift in public opinion. When the New York Senate defeated a marriage equality bill in 2009, a bare majority of voters were in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. The near ten-point increase in public support in just two years demonstrates the rapid pace at which voters are evolving on the issue of gay and lesbian equality.

More importantly, it highlights the risk that many Republicans face by refusing to move forward on marriage. Politicians who drag their feet on marriage equality now will find themselves in increasingly uncomfortable positions in the future.

Meanwhile, today’s New York Post reports that “seven or more Senate Republicans have signaled Gov. Cuomo that they’re ready to legalize same-sex marriage, more than enough to put the controversial and historic measure over the top this week.” “Influences contributing to the changes of heart are secret Republican polls showing majority support for gay marriage in key swing districts and the strong possibility that the GOP could lose control of the Senate next year to Democrats campaigning on the issue,” sources told the Post.

Global Grind has this transcript of a conversation between Tracy Morgan and Russell Simmons, in which Morgan expresses regret for his recent homophobic rant in Tennessee and comes out in support of full marriage equality:

MORGAN: What I am most sad about is the comments I made about kids and bullying. I would never want any young person to think that I wasn’t on their side and if any young person thinks they can bully a young gay kid, come see me at 30 Rock. On the corner, I would be happy to meet you. Or Brooklyn if you can’t make it into Manhattan. [...]

I believe everyone deserves the right to be happy and marry who they want too; gay, white, black, male or female. Let me know where the rally’s at Russ. I’m there!…GO KNICKS!

GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios has called on Morgan to “meet with the parents of kids who’ve killed themselves or lost their lives in the hands of violence” and “homeless gay kids who have been kicked out because of their parents’ homophobia.”

This post was generated based on liveblogging from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and various live Tweets from the courtroom.

Rallying for equality outside the courthouse this morning. (Photo credit: Urvi Nagrani)

The first of two motions in today’s Proposition 8 proceedings has already been decided against those attempting to maintain inequality. Defendants of Prop 8 argued that all the videos of the trial from last year should be kept from public consumption, a concern they raised after now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker used one of the videos in a lecture he gave a few months ago. Though Walker returned all the videos, attorney Charles Cooper argued that all the videos should not only be recollected, but destroyed.

The new judge presiding over the trial, Judge James Ware, pointed out that he was the one who gave Judge Walker the tapes at Walker’s retirement ceremony. Perhaps foreshadowing how he will rule in the other motion — about whether Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is in a same-sex relationship — Ware asked Cooper if he, too, should consider recusing himself because of his connection to the videos. When Cooper did not respond (perhaps because of the laughter in the gallery), Ware added, “I don’t need an answer now.”

Theodore Boutrous, arguing for the plaintiffs, pointed out that the videos document a public record, not a “radioactive state secret.” The plaintiffs have copies of the video, and they intend to use them in preparation for their appeal of the case. Therese Stewart, who represents the city of San Francisco, pointed out the irony of the defendants’ attempts to question Judge Walker’s fairness while at the same time stifle the videos showing his fairness.

After hearing both sides, Judge Ware ruled that he would deny the motion to have the videos returned.

Among the onslaught of voices condemning Tracy Morgan for his recent homophobic rant in a Nashville night club, comedian Wanda Sykes pointed out on Twitter that the negative climate in Tennessee may have very well have encouraged Morgan to engage in such rhetoric:

Had time to think. Tracy is just a dumb comic. I fault the TN lawmakers. They’ve created an anti-gay environment. Don’t believe Tracy would be so ignorant in LA, because we have a mayor, a city council, and police chief who believes we are all equal. I do believe in free speech, but for a youth in TN or any other numerous place, Tracy just yelled, “Fire,” in a crowded theater.

Sykes is likely referring to the several bills recently considered by the Tennessee legislature:

BAN NON-DISCRIMINATION: The state has passed an unprecedented law that prevents its municipalities from extending non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law was a direct response to Nashville extending those very protections, which are now void. Essentially, it’s now against Tennessee law for cities to protect LGBT people from discrimination.

DON’T SAY GAY: The infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill would prohibit discussion of same-sex orientations before 8th grade. It passed the Senate but there was not time for it to pass the House, so it will come up again next year.

PARENTAL INTERFERENCE: A third bill discussed in both chambers would have threatened access to gay-straight alliances in Tennessee’s schools by letting parents decide which clubs students are allowed to join.

All three bills aim to either preserve opportunities to discriminate against LGBT people or block pro-LGBT resources designed to create a more positive environment. Essentially, Tennessee lawmakers are ensuring that rhetoric like what Morgan spewed can be heard loud and clear.

But Sykes’ suggestion that Morgan wouldn’t “be so ignorant in LA” doesn’t mean that Morgan has different views just because he’s in a different city. Anti-gay views are anti-gay views, and either Morgan has them (and finally felt free to share them) or his act is built entirely around pandering to his audience. Either way, Sykes’ greater point is spot on: Morgan probably wouldn’t have made the remarks if he weren’t in an environment that welcomed and encouraged them. This speaks to the importance of laws that actually do the opposite of what Tennessee lawmakers have proposed. Only by proactively discussing sexual orientation in schools and including it in anti-bullying instruction can rhetoric like Morgan’s (which is prevalent throughout schools) truly be countered so that youth can be protected.

Via Dave Weigel, The Concord Monitor’s A1 above-the-fold story is headlined “Rick Santorum vs. The Internet” and is about Santorum’s Google problem. “Yesterday afternoon, a Google search for “Rick Santorum” yielded roughly 5.2 million hits. The top two results lead to spreadingsantorum.com. The campaign’s website, ricksantorum.com, was ranked fifth,” the article notes:

Asked about the issue last week, Santorum responded, “unfortunately there are vile people out there who do horrible things.”